Tupshin Harper wrote:
In my ongoing quest to understand the possibilities (and possible
limitations) of parrot, here's another one. ;-)
How close a mapping can there be between regular (x86 in this example)
assembly (as generated by c-compilation) and pasm?
I can't figure out if the stack ops ca
Jonathan Sillito wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Leopold Toetsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And from imcc's register allocations POV the whole coroutine stuff is a
PITA, no registers are preserved, AFAIK, so a coroutines and the caller
+ all edges out from both do share the same registers,
At 3:28 AM +1300 3/6/03, Sam Vilain wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:31, Brent Dax wrote:
# *) A superclass (obviously, but I consider it to be the
# same level as
# Properties, Methods and Attributes.)
Superclass*es*. Perl 5 has MI, and I don't expect that to change in
Perl 6. Parrot ab
# New Ticket Created by Allison Randal
# Please include the string: [perl #21476]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21476 >
I couldn't compile imcc under OS X because of a repeat of the old "ld:
multiple defini
[This came from perl6-internals, and should go back there. Redirect
followups appropriately, please]
At 11:58 PM +1300 3/4/03, Sam Vilain wrote:
Dan,
Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse, but I just caught this call via the
summarizer.
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects [for pe
At 10:10 AM -0600 3/5/03, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Several people have mentioned a desire to see Perl6 and Parrot facilitate
object persistence. Should such issues be tackled in Parrot?
To some extent, yes. (And as such this is CC'd to both p6l and p6i,
but discussion really belongs in p6i)
There's
